Fraudulent joinder is a familiar removal tool for defendants. The doctrine establishes a right to remove by disregarding a jurisdictional spoiler's citizenship. And 30 days is a familiar removal deadline for defendants: the removal statute's 30-day clock starts ticking from particular occurrences. The interrelationship between the right to remove and the obligation (in the clock-ticking sense) is not always clear. For example, an amended pleading clarifying that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum starts the 30-day clock, but defendants need not wait for that amended pleading if they choose to remove and attempt to prove the amount by a preponderance of the evidence. The clock starts ticking, generally, when a court paper makes it obvious, but the right to remove does not depend upon obviousness in the state-court record. When does the 30-day clock start ticking in fraudulent-joinder cases? What if the state court petition reveals an obviously bogus claim against the state-court spoiler? Does this trigger the 30-day clock? Recently, Judge Martinez didn't quite answer this question, but he did remand a case because "by not clearly stating when they learned of the alleged fraudulent joinder, Defendants have created both ambiguity and doubt in their Notice of Removal,and as a result the court finds that they did not properly remove the action." Heads up, removers: Download Ayres.pdf --RR